SNG variance reduction question

[konahead]

Was posting on the multi forum, and this topic came up because of a response I made, so I thought I'd ask the question over here.

Variance, assuming you play correctly all the time, is really a matter of bad luck. So...

Do you believe in streaks of bad luck? And if so, do you modify your game to account for it?

As an example, lately I've been on a real down trend, and have gotten sucked out on more times than I can count. So now, once the pot is a certain size (1/2 my stack or more), I try to take it down there, rather than just give bad odds to the draws. (Obviously if I have a super-strong hand, I'll slow-play, etc.) Once my luck "normalizes", I'll go back to regular bad-odds raising. (Hopefully that will be soon - things are in fact getting better... )

Does anyone else modify their game during severe down-variance periods, or do you just play the same game?

[zenbitz]

If this...

Variance, assuming you play correctly all the time, is really a matter of bad luck. So...

is true.

then this...

So now, once the pot is a certain size (1/2 my stack or more), I try to take it down there, rather than just give bad odds to the draws. (Obviously if I have a super-strong hand, I'll slow-play, etc.)

is incorrect.

[konahead]

I don't understand what you're saying.

My question was - if you're having a long-running bad streak, do you try to minimize suckouts by betting larger than you normally would?

What are you trying to say, zenbitz?

[zenbitz]

If you play correctly all the time, then you should play correctly all the time!

If taking down a pot (i..e, getting folds instead of extracting value) is the correct play, then it's the correct play NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST 10 TIMES YOU DID IT.

So, no, you should NOT try to minimize suckouts... you should try to maximize the amount they pay to suck out on you.

If you are worried about your BR, you should move down.

Now, if for some reason you are NOT playing correctly, then maybe you should adjust your play (well, no "maybes" about it... but it's not always easy to find a leak)

Not to say that you should never try to "just take down a pot" - but have a better reason than "I hate getting sucked out on".

I think "correct" play when you are ahead on a draw heavy board is to bet exactly the maximum amount that you will get called while giving bad odds. Now, maybe in a tourney there are survival/payout issues that trump cEV, but that should be true whether you are en fuego or cold decked.

I mean, you shouldn't make more loose calls when you are running hot, right?

[konahead]

no, but I may slowplay something when I'm running hot but hit it hard when I've gotten sucked out on 3 times in a row.... I think a lot, if not most, people make some modifications, however slight, to their game when experiencing a severe downtrend.

maybe it's just me, but that's why I was asking the question. It's not necessarily "should you", but "do you"?

Let me ask you specifically, zen. Haven't you ever been playing, and get sucked out on 3 times in a row, then you get in a pot that's decent size and you"re like "hell with this, I'm taking it down now", even though you might be leaving a few chips on the table, just because it's the less risky path?

btw - I've seen Daniel Negreanu do it, so I know I'm not the only one....

[TLR]

Modifying a winning game strategy because of short term losing streak is very understandable, but it is just wrong.

It is better to quit for the day and come in next day fresh

[Halv]

Specifically in dealing with the matter of bet sizes: if it's multiway I know the next player to act is a donk/calling station who will call me down with bad odds, then I will make a bigger than usual bet to make the guy behind him fold even if the donk does call.

Suckouts are good. It tells you that the player who is sucking out on you is not a good player. In regards to modifying your game against him, you should do what's been said; make the bet the highest amount that he will call incorrectly. By maximising the amount you lose if you DO get sucked out on you maximise your long term winnings, because you WILL win the pot more often than not. It's a probabilistic fact (did that come out right?), and probabilities don't lie.

If you can't maximise your winnings walk away.

[DogOnMySide]

I know what you're trying to say, but really there is no such thing as a streak of bad luck, in the sense that you can be "having a bad streak"

You can have HAD (in the past) a run of improbable outcomes which have negatively affected you. However, the next bad event IS NOT LINKED to the other ones, unless you caused it to be by misplaying.

If you flop a royal flush in your next hand, and double up... are you still on a streak of bad luck? Or is your streak over?

What if the hand after that one you flop a set and someone rivers a flush? Is that bad luck? Or was it good luck that you flopped the set? Are you still on a bad streak even though you got a royal flush, the odds of which are huge?

Each hand is an independent event. They're not linked. There is no such thing as a bad streak.

Take a rest, or... play a different type of poker, like a micro-stake MTT or some ring game for a while if you think you can do it without tilting your cash away! GL

[konahead]

lol - well, I'm not tilting by any stretch of the imagination. I was just curious how other players felt about this. I'm kind of suprised by the answers - they're so textbook rather than real life...

And I know events are not linked, but trends do occur, ask any player. How do you explain such large variances - 30 sng swings, etc? So to briefly modify your play to minimize the effects of down trends just seems to me like the normal course of business. Suprised to hear so many disagree with that....

And I'm very suprised to see people using words like "mis-play" and "negatively affect your play", etc on this thread. I'm not talking about playing incorrectly. I'm talking about taking the path of less risk when on a downtrend. Ask 10 players how they handle a situation, and some will say push there and others will say bet 2/3 pot to give bad odds and get more chips. Neither answer is wrong, but the push may be the less risky move if you don't want to let opp see another card without risking his whole stack, knowing he will be reluctant to do so. I wouldn't call that mis-playing, I'd call it risk-aversion.....

[Halv]

Of course I understand your point, but with regards to the magical "bad luck" you cannot fight it. It is just probabilities coming out to bite you in the ass. If you do not make the most of all situations even if you are on a bad streak, then that is in some degree tilting. To me, tilt == when you don't play your hands optimally regardless of whether you are on an upswing or on a downswing. Pushing opponents off hands that you are a major favorite to win just because he might suck out on you is not optimal play.

Isn't risk aversion the opposite of maximising winnings? Taken to the extreme, risk aversion is the same as not playing - if you don't play you dont risk anything. Textbook answer or not, to stop taking risks because you are on a downswing is just wrong. Not to say that everyone probably does it sometimes, but just because something is not uncommon doesn't make it right.

Poker is about making the right decisions and making your opponent make the wrong decicions. When you get sucked out on, your opponent is making a mistake. When you are afraid of being sucked out on, the mistake is yours.

[Toe]

My view: In certain situations by taking the path of least risk you are passing up potential value on your hand and so therefore you are playing incorrectly.

[Ingtar17]

Assuming you are playing 100% correctly in the first place, then anything you change solely based on your previous bad luck is playing incorrectly. Do people do it? Sure - it's human nature. Should they? Of course not.

Risk mitigation may be a reasonable strategy if you come to that conclusion independantly (This would never apply in a ring game - but may in a tourney/SNG depending on the situation), but risk mitigation just because of past bad beats is just plain wrong. Just my 2cents.

Another question to ask is - if you are losing so much then maybe it isn't variance. Maybe you are actually playing wrong in the first place, in which case you SHOULD change your game. It's sometimes hard to know the difference so send in those hand histories to the experts (not me).

Ing

[konahead]

Well, I didn't start this post because I'm "losing so much". And I take bankrool management very seriously. I am coming out of a pretty bad down-swing, not due to bad play (mostly), but not THAT bad. This isn't a bad beat complaint post.

Thanks for the responses. I guess I'm the only one that makes minor modifications to my play depending on my trend. And I do mean minor changes - very minor. I tighten up a little and give worse odds to opps.

thx.

[Warpe]

I think "correct" play when you are ahead on a draw heavy board is to bet exactly the maximum amount that you will get called while giving bad odds. Now, maybe in a tourney there are survival/payout issues that trump cEV, but that should be true whether you are en fuego or cold decked.

I think this is one of the biggest (and least discussed) differences between tourney and ring. Ring players look at their long term play, and while tourney players should as well, to a point, a ring player can always reload after a bad beat while someone who gets sucked out on in a freezeout has to find another tourney.

If you play SnGs that's not a big issue, if you multi-table and/or have the time, but what if you're in one of the big weeklies? Or you're a B&M player?

I think in these cases then survival definitely trumps cEV, and your play should be adjusted to take down pots early in order to minimize the suckout factor, even if you are leaving chips on the table. Maximize your nut hands but give opps with strong draws with the potential to beat you really bad odds for playing them. When I do get sucked out on, more often than not it's because I just didn't bet hard enough on one street or another. Some you just can't avoid, and those I accept, but in tourney I consider letting an opp suck out on me to be just plain bad play on my part. In tourney.

As far as downswings go, whether I adjust my play or not depends on whether I think I've played well or not. There's variance and then there's that minor tilt (let's call it a lean) that creeps in unnoticed. I tend to get looser and gambool more when I've been doing well and that's invariably when the downswing begins, so I have to tighten up to reverse the slide.

That said, I'm still very much a noob with a lot of areas of my game that need improving, so take my advice with a grain (or possibly a large bag) of salt. Someone on here said poker is a game you learn in layers. I'm finding that to be oh so true. I don't know what layer I'm at but I do know that I'm light years ahead of where I was even six months ago (thanks to the insights I've gained from the much more experienced players on FTR) yet I still have many more layers to go through.

en fuego or cold decked.

Please translate.

[pgil]

most, if not all of these responses seem to be more geared towards a ring game format rather than a tournament. (posts posted while i was writing this have emphasized the difference between tourney and ring) I think that a good way to reduce overall variance in tournaments might be to not let people draw for even remotely the right price (barring them drawing dead). you may be leaving some chips on the table if you overbet 2 pair on a draw heavy flop, but all of those chips in the middle are now in your stack for this tournament. you can now (hopefully) leverage these extra chips in later situations to further increase your chipstack, thereby making up for the chips left "on the table" in an earlier hand.

I am not advocating this type of play, nor am i saying it's the correct way (or even the way i play) to play a SNG, but it would seem to remove a lot of the 'luck' factor from your SNG variance. if you only go to the river with chips left behind and a <5% chance that the opp can win the hand, then you should vastly reduce the number of times you bust out of a SNG due to being outdrawn. rather than just not giving odds for a flush draw, and making an few extra chips 2/3 of the time, take all of the chips in the middle 90% of the time, because you will still get some people who cant let go of a draw. it would be closer to 80-85% for most of the 5.50 tournaments ive played in.

eg. starting stacks of 1500, 9 players. say you face an average of 12 flush draws against per tournament. I have no idea what the actual number would be, this was chosen at random. they would be spread out over the first four blind levels, weighted towards the first two. we will also assume starting pot of 3.5xBB (this includes your call of the blind). also assumes only 1 opp per hand, and that flush hits on the river, not the turn.
10/20: 5 flush draws faced.
starting pot (before flop) = 70. for this pot, a bet of 40 on the flop, plus a bet of 80 on the turn is sufficient to give a flush draw bad odds. final pot at the river = 310. amount you've invested = 140. net amount per flush draw = 112 chips (170*66). times this by 5 flush draws and we have increased our stack by 560 chips.
if you were to massively overbet this pot, lets say 210 into a 70 pot, this gives horrible odds to a flush draw, and has a good probability of taking the pot now. assume 80% folds. 4/5 times you will take 70 chips, = 280.
called: final pot at river = (assuming AI on turn) 3050. amount invested = 1500. net amount per flush draw seen until the river = 1023.
so, over all 5 flush draws faced at this level, we net 1303 by 3xpot on flop, AI on river, vs. 560 chips by simply giving someone bad odds. of course, there is a .06 chance that you will be eliminated after going AI on the turn, while no chance of being eliminated by playing standard. but, you have only faced 1 flush draw that got to see all 5 cards vs. 5 flush draws while playing standard.

this makes a lot of assumptions, and the math may be a little dodgy, but I think it makes my point. not letting draws in for anywhere near the right price should decrease in-tournament variance, which should ultimately lead to a decrease in SNG variance.
we have all lost to 3 flush draws in a row (or is it just me) and busted out of a tournament even though all 3 were played properly (ie. given bad odds to chase). if you instead give horrible odds and not worry about not getting the 'maximum' amount of chips off of every hand where you are facing a draw that has a decent probability of hitting, then you should stay in more tournaments. this should allow you, since you are presumably better than most of the competition that you are playing against, to money/win more tournaments simply because you are in them longer, and are playing more hands.

[Bailey]

I don't adjust my play at all.. I definately don't think its worth it. I use to but making incorrect plays to take pots down early because you fear getting sucked out may prevent you from gaining the stack you need to make it to the money.

I see players all the time that play like absolute pussies final 4... just today I seen a guy on party fold his entire stack after 3 or 4 orbits trying to make the money.. he had 1500 chips or so, blinds were 200/400.. he just kept folding, and folding.. eventually he had 65 chips.. guess who busted 4th? Obviously they are doing this because they are scared of taking 4th.. I would assume that he doesnt play like this all the time.. I mean he was pretty much playing for 3rd. Anyways, if he actually continued to play, making steals when he was suppost to.. not only would he have probably made the money but would have had a great shot at 1st (which is the only thing that actually matters).

Anyways, I strongly suggest you maintain your game... everytime I have a downswing I always go over old HHs and review how I use to play..

I realize we all have those days were it seems like if any card could come down to ruin your hand that card always comes. Whether your opponent has 2 or 12 outs, he always hits when you are allin. I just dont think downswings should last that long.. bad luck will result in a minor downswing, but inconsistent play could result in a HUGE downswing. I've been playing party sngs for 2 months now.. the 20+2s, I've cashed anywhere from 150 to 200 everynight.. except 2 days during that time. Never playing anymore then 24 sngs... some days I only play 4.. however long it takes me to get up 150 . The days that I was unable to cash 150 were probably a bit of bad luck and a bit my fault.. prior to playing on party I would play on paradise where I would have downswings that lasted days.. where I'd have to stop playing for a few days to get back on the right track.. downswings like that are the result of badplay.. Id take a break and everything would be fine, because somewhere along the line my play got fucked up and after the break id somehow play like I use to..

anyways I should shut up now.. going on tooooo much lol

[konahead]

Warpe wrote:
"I tend to get looser and gambool more when I've been doing well and that's invariably when the downswing begins, so I have to tighten up to reverse the slide. " (still can't get the quote thing to work....)

Perhaps this is what I experience, although I don't get looser when on a good run - but I certainly give worse odds and take down pots earlier when on a downtrend. I then experience less variance and win more times, even though I know I may be getting slightly less than full value from my hands. Maybe, given that I play tournaments almost exclusively, I should play this way all the time rather than only when having a "bad run."

When "running good", I'll always give a flush draw 3-1 pot odds, but when running "bad" I'll give 2-1 or even 1.5-1 odds. Maybe I should always give 2-1 to flush draws, rather than 3-1 on a 4-1 draw. Perhaps this is the proper way to play tourneys .

If you know they'll call at 3-1 odds, but fold to 2-1 odds, which is the better play in a tournament environment? Are the extra chips worth the risk? And which reduces variance the most? (I think we know the answer to the last one....)

[boost]

If this...

Variance, assuming you play correctly all the time, is really a matter of bad luck. So...

is true.

this is NOT true. Variance means that if you are making 10$ a day, you might make -30 one day, 150 the next day, but over 100000000000000000 days you would avg 10$ a day. Variance is just as much good luck as bad luck. Variance is what makes this game go 'round. If there was no variance, fish would always lose and not care to come back, we would always break even cuz there would be no fish to feed our pockets. The occasional upswing is what makes fish stay. Variance is our freind, and without not only would we not make money, but the game wouldnt be fun.

[boost]

And like everyone else said, Winning poker is winning poker, whether youve been losing with it or winning with it. Variance is variance, and the cards dont care if youve been up or down. Why would you want to cancel out thier bad odds? Give them the bad odds, let the 'tard make the mistake. Also when you are giving bad odds when you flop like TP or something, its often helping you in 2 ways. First you are of course giving them bad odds, and therefore forcing them to make a mistake or fold. Second you are putting less money in the pot then a "go away bet" and you can tehrefore get away from the hand need be. What happens when you make that 'go away' pot sized bet and they just flopped thier set? You see how it works both ways? So this could actually INCREASE variance. Do You See Why?

[konahead]

If you play exactly the same every day and every time, variance is simply good luck versus bad luck. When I said variance was bad luck, I meant down-swing variance. Up-swing variance is obviously good luck - and again - this assumes you play correctly all the time.

And if you are a good player, variance actually has more to do with bad luck than good luck, because as a good player you put yourself in less situations where luck is a factor, less times than other players do.

When ilikeaces, michael1123, or 'rilla are on a down-trend, or scgolfer wins 5 major tourneys in a row, I don't believe it's because their game has changed dramatically - it's because they are having a bad run (or good run) of cards - and that, my friend, it called luck.

If you think "luck" doesn't exist, or that it does not come in streaks, you haven't been playing poker long enough.... and yes, I agree - variance is our friend. Otherwise fishing season would be over - I agree.

[GixMage]

As far as overbetting pots to avoid suckouts, I generally try to play as optimal as possible. However, in tournaments, there are times at which taking down the current pot as it stands is preferable to giving bad odds. Tournaments are about survival first and accumulation second, you cant win if you get busted. This does not mean you should take down every bet with the all-in move, but there are times (read dependant), that a medium pot + guaranteed survival is preferable to a huge pot with a 25% chance of busting out. Keep in mind also, there will be those who call with draws, and those times they are calling with horrible odds when you have the best of it.

[DogOnMySide]

As far as overbetting pots to avoid suckouts, I generally try to play as optimal as possible. However, in tournaments, there are times at which taking down the current pot as it stands is preferable to giving bad odds. Tournaments are about survival first and accumulation second, you cant win if you get busted. This does not mean you should take down every bet with the all-in move, but there are times (read dependant), that a medium pot + guaranteed survival is preferable to a huge pot with a 25% chance of busting out. Keep in mind also, there will be those who call with draws, and those times they are calling with horrible odds when you have the best of it.

qft

someone was reading a HH of mine and said "you could have bet less there to keep them in the pot". My spin at the time was "i dont want to go broke at this stage in the tourney. I don't think he has a hand yet, even though he called my 4x PF raise. Therefore i want to take this small-medium pot NOW and move on. "

I totally agree with that. It may not be the optimal bet in a cash game, but in a tournament situation it's a different matter

[Warpe]

...there are times (read dependant), that a medium pot + guaranteed survival is preferable to a huge pot with a 25% chance of busting out...

Let's use that as a simple hypothetical example: If you're going to be busted 1 in 4 times, in ring that's acceptable because 3 out of 4 times you're making money, so it's +EV to have your opp drawing to make his hand over the long run. But in a tourney, you only need to be in that situation a few times for your odds of busting out to start to approach 100% certainty - with no chance of recouping your losses on a later hand, 'cause for you the tourney's over. That's -EV.

Obviously, there's a balance to be maintained between playing pots for value and taking them down, but the line should be drawn in an entirely different place in tourney than it is in ring.

Where one player draws it as compared to another is another matter. But if a player generally gives the same odds on all streets in tourney as they do in ring, then they likely do not do very well in one or the other.

[Bailey]

Warpe I am from winnipeg too....

[boost]

Koma, its not luck... you are making 10$ a day in my example, Every day you are making 10$. Even if you lose 150$ that one day, you are still making 10$ that day. Variance (or luck as you say) does NOT come in streaks, I dont care how long you have been playing poker, 'cause it has zip to do with poker. Its mathematical fact. You could flip a coin 1 million times, it could alternate on every flip heads/tails, it could actually show a pattern of HH TTT HHH TT, it could be completely random. Its a human fault to assign recognition to something completely abstract. We do this because we have trouble comprehending abstract thoughts, or those of randomness. So yes there can seem to be patterns in randomness, but any pattern is not infinitly sustainable.

Also the thing about for good players variance having to do more with bad luck hten good luck. This is also horribly incorrect. It just is not mathematical. This is a fault of our ego, we want to beleive that when we are doing good, its due to our skill, and when we are doing bad its due to our bad luck.

The best I could what you are suggesting to do on a down swing into a visual image is:
You have a coin that flips 60% heads and 40% tails, now you know this and youve got a sucker playing the tails against you. Now you are playing for 1$ a flip and you go down 15$. Now you decide to switch to tails. Thats what you are suggesting is a good strategy on a down swing :-\

[zenbitz]

And I thought I had said all there was to say on this...

1) Yes, I do this sometimes. It's called tilting. It's not LAGG tilting (raising bad hands too much), it's not passive tilting (calling too much instead of raising/folding) it's just Aggression/Overbet tilting.

You may not feel tilted, but if you are playing suboptimally because of a bad beat... what else would you call it.

Also, tourney vs. ring is not relevant here, as I explained apparently incoherently. Sometimes perfect play (especially in a tourney) is to overbet and try to get folds rather than maximize chip EV. Doing this because you have been sucked out on a lot is tilting.

Finally
"en fuego or cold decked" - En Fuego -> spanish for "On Fire". Some times I forget we are not all from California/Arizona/Texas/New York (Europe?). I just meant that how hot you are running should not dictate your play.

As an aside - the RESULT of running hot or cold can (and should!) dictate your play. If you are running hot in a tourney you probably have a big stack - and that clearly influences strategy one way or another. Converse (small stack after bad beat) is also true. But that's the SITUATION that changes, not your "run of luck".

Finally, since I am not sure konahead got it. Luck runs in streaks. But they are NOT, NOT NOT of a predictable length. If they are, they are not luck, but something else (tilt, hand of god, cheating... something)

[Rockymv]

How bad of a downswing are you on?

[biondino]

Correct play is correct play. Correct play in a SMG is different from correct play in ring. If you are losing because you are not playign well, then correcting your play MAY WELL involve tightening up, folding more hands, simply because that will make your play more correct.

I find I do this when I am having a bad session. I convince myself that I am playing too many hands, or betting too much, so I play fewer hands and fold more readily. Now, while a conservative game can be useful for avoiding recklessness, I understand that it isn't my optimum game, so if I do find myself in this situation, I may play a few orbits more tight/weak BUT during this time I will be intensively watching my opponents, looking at their stats, seeing what they take to showdown etc. The happy effect of this is that my confidence will return and I will be able to shift back to my A game.

[Halv]

Adjusting your play in-game in an SnG is of course something you will want to do. Deciding to adjust your play going into an SnG because you are on a bad streak is something else.

With regards to stepping back and tightening up for an orbit or two after playing badly (or playing well and being sucked out on) also helps build/rebuild your table image, enabling you to take advantage of this later on.

[boost]

oh and another note on this, when you are constantly betting the pot when you have a hand cuz yo udont want to be outdrawn, what exactly are you doing when you raised AK preflop and watn to c-bet? Please dont tell me that you are betting half pot here, becaues now you are just begging people to take notes on your obvious play. If on the other hand you are betting the pot to minimize reads, well thats not much better, you are going to be over comitting ot a pot that you should be trying to get a date with, not marry.

[Halv]

oh and another note on this, when you are constantly betting the pot when you have a hand cuz yo udont want to be outdrawn, what exactly are you doing when you raised AK preflop and watn to c-bet? Please dont tell me that you are betting half pot here, becaues now you are just begging people to take notes on your obvious play. If on the other hand you are betting the pot to minimize reads, well thats not much better, you are going to be over comitting ot a pot that you should be trying to get a date with, not marry.

Quoted for truth. I hadn't even considered this, but yeah, playing your good hands that hit for less than max makes your good hands that don't hit go down in value drastically. Of course if you know that they know that you play this way, you can trap them with your good hands that hit by playing them like they didn't.

I like to vary my bet sizes, sometimes I'll push, sometimes I'll almost underbet, sometimes I'll bet just right, but I don't adjust this to my "bad luck".

[boost]

meh... sngs are too short and simple for all that I think. Sometimes Ill vary my bets ever so slightly. Like if they didnt believe the 1100 bet last time, bet 1000 this time. after having a 1100 bet picked off, 1000 loosks 'clean' I dont know if that makes sense... But for the most part my bets are staying the same. Another time Ill swithc my bets up is like preflop, Im raising 4x in early levels and adding 1bb for every limper, if 1 person limps and I raise 5x and they all fold, then the next hand I get AA I raise 5x again, limper or not. It makes me look like a bully raising 5x every hand.

[konahead]

Well, I understand everything you guys have been saying, and while I may not agree with all statements made, I have found the following, which has helped my results tremendously, so it was a worthwhile discussion: (btw - thanks, warpe, dog, etc!)

What I discovered in asking this question was that I was playing my sngs just a little too much like ring , always giving 3-1 odds to 4-1 draws, whereas I've gotten much better results by giving worse odds, say 2-1 to opp's flush draws (or a little worse if I think opp has more outs). So my downswing was partly bad luck (and a little bad play - lol - we all do it), but to a great extent I was just not betting enough to get draws to really think about it, thereby putting myself at risk too often. If you give just barely bad odds, and get calls most times - then even though opp is making a mistake calling, if you do it enough, you will get drawn out on. And sometimes survival is worth more than the extra chips you may get by giving proper bad odds and getting a call...

So I've upped my bets when I know opp is on a draw - I get less calls (although I still get quite a few ) and I am thereby not getting drawn out on nearly as often. I guess the moral is that if you "put yourself at risk" often enough, you will eventually lose. By giving 2.3-1 or more, rather than 3-1, I get less opps wanting to continue their draw, and my results have improved significantly just in the last few days.

But I don't overbet the pot - I merely upped my bets to closer to 3/4-full pot size, rather than my std - which was 1/2 pot bets. I was betting to give them just barely bad enough odds to make them want to call and make a mistake (and their calls may actually have been close to right with implied odds) - but now they have to really think about it, implied odds or not.

Thank you, gentlemen. Most helpful discussion.

btw - I still believe luck runs in streaks..... don't be hatin...

[Warpe]

Warpe I am from winnipeg too....

Just saw this. Great! PM me and we can share particulars. I'm often looking to fill a seat in my home game and a fellow FTRer would be a great addition!! (though not necessarily +EV) There's also that Barca Club game I keep hearing about that I wouldn't mind giving a whirl.

[Warpe]

(btw - thanks, warpe, dog, etc!)

yw.

[boost]

Well, I understand everything you guys have been saying, and while I may not agree with all statements made, I have found the following, which has helped my results tremendously

Dont make result oriented decisions, esp based on short term results. (oh and thanks for thanking me... Just cuz I didnt give you a pat on the back I guess I didnt help eh? Sorry if I didnt tell you what you wanna hear.. just trying to help)

btw - I still believe luck runs in streaks..... don't be hatin...

Well some people also believe that evolution doesnt exist, and further more dinosuar bones or any other hard proof is dismissed as being placed here as a test from god. Does that make them right?

[konahead]

boostNslide -
so you say "don't make results-oriented decisions..." but if you change your game and your results improve, then that's what you want, right? Isn't the goal to improve your results? no comprende. The way to improve in poker is to change your game until your results stop improving...

And I guess I didn't thank you cuz first, you didn't point me in the direction that helped improve my results (ie - pointing out the difference between ring play and tourney play) and second, you love to throw out wise cracks like evolution and shit like that.

If you don't believe in luck, nor that you can go through a long patch of unlucky results, then more power to you. (When you're on a downswing, you must just be playing shitty poker..) I do, however, agree that you shouldn't change your game to account for luck - I needed to change my game (bet size) entirely for tourney play. so thanks for that.....

btw - my definition of "luck" is "entirely random events going your way or not your way." So a long streak of bad luck is simply "entirely random events mostly not going your way - for a prolonged stretch of time". Hope that clears up your questions of whether I believe in the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy....

[boost]

sorry Im a wise ass, better then being an ungrateful ass. Oops there I go agaain (jk jk)

But my problem with saying things like "luck comes in streaks" is that its an attempt to make sense of randomness. Its random, and you have to force your brain to understand it, or atleast try to. I never said that its impossible to have bad variance (or luck as you put it) for a prolonged period of time, its absolutley possible, you could play 50 sngs a day and 'run bad' for 2 years, and it could all be due to variance. It can happen... I never said it cant.

[Rockymv]

Actually variance in SNG's is so high that there's really no way to tell whether a change you've made in your game has affected your results.

[gabe]

Actually variance in SNG's is so high that there's really no way to tell whether a change you've made in your game has affected your results.

i didn't read the thread, but this is 100% right.

if you want to reduce variance, go allin every hand. your roi will stay pretty constant.

[konahead]

well, boostNslide, I guess the problem was that I was calling it "luck" and you were calling it "variance". - semantics.

and I certainly didn't mean to come across as an ungrateful ass. I always appreciate everyone's input, so thanks again.

I guess that I'm still a little confused that - if we use "luck" and "variance" interchangably - you say luck/variance doesn't go in streaks, yet you agree that "you could play 50 sngs a day and run bad for 2 years, and it's all due to variance". That seems like a long streak to me.....

anyway - 'nuff said - no hatin here - thanks again, my fellow ftr-er.

[zenbitz]

Hate the concept, not the conceptor.

[boost]

semantics.

I think you mean, "bygons" (sp?)

[boost]

kona, you are saying luck does come in streaks. No, it doesnt, not 'it doesnt' as in never, but 'it doesnt' as in saying it does is incorrect. It CAN come in streaks.

[konahead]

no, I mean semantics - two different ways to say the same thing......

and i'm sorry i said anything about luck coming in streaks - obviously the wrong thing to say.

[DBL0SVN]

I guess that I'm still a little confused that - if we use "luck" and "variance" interchangably - you say luck/variance doesn't go in streaks, yet you agree that "you could play 50 sngs a day and run bad for 2 years, and it's all due to variance". That seems like a long streak to me.....

Variance or luck affects every hand INDEPENDENTLY of what has happened before.

It is certainly possible to get a run of independent events that equate to a run of bad luck/variance. This is UNPREDICTABLE. Most importantly, such a run of bad luck/variance has no influence on the NEXT hand.

So to summarise, you can certainly have a run of bad luck/variance, but this is ONLY obvious retrospectively and has NO predictive effect on future hands.

Learning point: you WILL get runs of bad luck - don't let this affect your 'A' game.

[DBL0SVN]

BTW Konahead, I agree that your 'A' game is likelt to be different in tournies as opposed to ring, so the amount you bet to capitalise on drawing opponents is different depending on what you're playing. In ring games - maximise EV for every hand. Tournies - survival, early vs late & other factors influence your decision as much as EV for that one hand.

[MAX]

KONA WROTE:

"I merely upped my bets to closer to 3/4-full pot size, rather than my std - which was 1/2 pot bets. I was betting to give them just barely bad enough odds to make them want to call and make a mistake (and their calls may actually have been close to right with implied odds)."

Plugging this leak will have a great effect on your long term results. Besides the survival factor, I have found that most players do not factor in implied odds at all. If the third flush card hits on the turn are you folding everytime? If not, you must incorporate the fact that you give up extra chips after people complete their draws. This is especially true when you have a hand that you can't fold, like top set. When people make smaller bets with hands like this, they are giving incredible odds to their opp. Another example is AA preflop.